coral reefs take millions of years to grow

hagfish

hagfish

Active Member
I saw someone mention somewhere in this thread talk of us having all kinds of unused organs and body parts as proof of evolution. That's really not true. There was a time when the use of those parts was unknown, but they have since been discovered.
Also, for those who believe in evolution, did you know that many well known and respected scientists are turning from evolution because there really isn't any proof of it other than speculation of similarities between animals. And that's not even to say that they are turning to Christianity or any other religion, many are finally admitting that there is just no scientific proof (it is only a theory after all). Darwin suggested that at some point in the future (which has long since happened since he died) we would uncover countless fossils of missing links. How can we have possibly not found those missing links to this day? When you consider that we have dinasaur bones that are considered to be millions of years old there must have been some creature that died and left us a fossil between now and then that was a missing link species. Yet we haven't found it.
 
caomt

caomt

Member
see.. over all this time.. the earth could of changed.. its cover by about 76 % of water? natural things could of happened and covered up alot...
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by caomt
see.. over all this time.. the earth could of changed.. its cover by about 76 % of water? natural things could of happened and covered up alot...
Only 76%? What happenned to global warming? I thought the Ice caps were melting. Shouldn't it be closer to 80% by now?
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
Originally Posted by hagfish
I saw someone mention somewhere in this thread talk of us having all kinds of unused organs and body parts as proof of evolution. That's really not true. There was a time when the use of those parts was unknown, but they have since been discovered.
Also, for those who believe in evolution, did you know that many well known and respected scientists are turning from evolution because there really isn't any proof of it other than speculation of similarities between animals. And that's not even to say that they are turning to Christianity or any other religion, many are finally admitting that there is just no scientific proof (it is only a theory after all). Darwin suggested that at some point in the future (which has long since happened since he died) we would uncover countless fossils of missing links. How can we have possibly not found those missing links to this day? When you consider that we have dinasaur bones that are considered to be millions of years old there must have been some creature that died and left us a fossil between now and then that was a missing link species. Yet we haven't found it.
I completely agree. There is no scientific evidence... it's just all speculation. Just because this one bird species looks like a bird species from an era before it doesn't mean it evolved from that other bird... where's all the species in between??? There were just different species of birds, and they became extinct... not evolution, natural selection. Those that can't survive won't, and those that can survive will... My belief is that there were sooo many other species of animals longer ago, and as the earth grew older, and the environments change, some of those creatures were able to live on, and the others weren't... hence all the extinct creatures we're finding today.
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Both sides have nothing but circumstantial evidence. In a court of law it wouldn't hold up...so how can anyone say one is more correct over the other. This is why the creationists call what they believe faith. They know ultimately it can not be provided at the moment so they have to rely on faith. The evolutionists however do not use this approach. That is why I have more respect for creationists typically. They show you their reasons, but ultimately know they have no

[hr]
proof.
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
i just believe what i believe
I don't care that i can't prove it, and i don't care that some people don't believe me. But evolutionists (no offense to anyone on here!!!) are like "there's actual evidence!!!" and they try to force this on you like it's fact and not a belief... it's tiresome.
 
keleighr

keleighr

Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
i just believe what i believe
I don't care that i can't prove it, and i don't care that some people don't believe me. But evolutionists (no offense to anyone on here!!!) are like "there's actual evidence!!!" and they try to force this on you like it's fact and not a belief... it's tiresome.

THIS is why we are truly sisters!!!

Totally agree.
 
ophiura

ophiura

Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
But evolutionists (no offense to anyone on here!!!) are like "there's actual evidence!!!" and they try to force this on you like it's fact and not a belief... it's tiresome.
I would ask that you please do not lump all "evolutionists" into this mold because it falls into a common trap - that is the root of the "ugly side" of this debate. From reading this thread and other similar threads, I can make the same statement about creationists, not only trying to force it down throats, but condemning people who do not follow the biblical story of the creation. Doesn't convert me, that's for sure.
As I mentioned earlier, there are two problems with the argument. Evolutionists who do not leave room for God, and Creationists who do not leave room for science. And there is a lot of wiggle room in between.
I believe in God, I believe in evolution. I believe that not using my interests and skills in science is an insult to my God. I believe that God looks to draw us closer in whatever way speaks to us. For some, it is the bible, for others, it is a specimen in a jar. I worked on about 90 species of deep sea ophiuroids, that differed consistently by number of small features. To me it is insulting to an almighty omnipotent God to think him saying "oh gosh just put another darn arm spine on that thing and be done with it, I'm so bored" than to Create a self perpetuating self correcting mode of evolution. If he did create all those - well, IMO, he lost some energy in the home stretch. Several of my most "religious" experiences and most "fateful" events happened while I was ACTIVELY studying evolution. So if I am condemned for that belief, well, what can I say? But evolution, in my mind, brings Glory to God...it is more science than faith. A different way for the mind to work. The thought of a 6 day creation may cause others to bring that Glory to God...that's great, but it is more faith and not so much science. Again, a different way for the mind to work. Like there are introverts and extroverts.
But the whole purpose is the same -whether Faith or Science speaks to you- and allowing for both to draw us closer is a sign of God's love, IMO.
Scientists often study natural history - both currently and historically - in an effort to better appreciate God and his work. That may certainly include the study of evolution.
I think there are some excellent perspectives here for many faiths:
http://www.npr.org/takingissue/20050...e_origins.html
There is middle ground for those who choose to listen. But we can agree there is a dire need both for real SCIENCE education in school (totally lacking) and real RELIGIOUS education in school (totally lacking). Our educational system in many ways has failed us. For one, it is evident in the "its just a theory" line which in science means something very different from every day use of the word. Gravity is "just a theory" in science.
And again I say, there is NO scientific finding that precludes the existence of God...one is FAITH and the other is SCIENCE and they do not disprove one another.
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
i agree completely with you ophiura, and that is why i put the disclaimer that says (please don't take offense to that). I didn't lump all evolutionists together. when i said "evolutionists", i was referring to the people that are solely evolutionists, and don't leave any room for anything else.
 
willcon

willcon

Member
Sorry to bust any bubbles but its quite clear the earth is at leastt 3 billion years old. If any of you have ever heard of radioative elements it shows quite cleary how long a substance has been around, the oldest rock humans have dated is 3.8 billion years old. Its quite absurd to claim the earth is that young(a mere few thousand years.) This does not bash creationism at all whatsoever. One fact us humans have come to know is that the earth is older than 3 million years old.
Pick up Issac Asimov's guide to earth and space, excellent read.
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
yeah, that's all based on calculations that were come up with by humans... those calculations could be very wrong!!! It's all based on exponential calculations, but what if it doesn't happen at an exponential rate??? There's no way to know how old the earth is... otherwise it would be a fact, and this disgussion wouldn't have taken place at all, because everyone would already have learned it in school...
 
willcon

willcon

Member
im sorry but this is a known truth, uranium breaks down into lead at a VERY CONSTANT rate, in light of the amount of lead isotopes in a certain rock one can deduce th age of a rock quite easily, we have found many rocks with the a certain amount of a lead isotope which shows that the uranium would have to of been breaking down over a very long time to produce this lead isotope, matter doesnt just appear or dissappear. these calculations show that some rocks are in excess of one million years old. Im sorry if this doent agree with your beliefs but please dont let faith interfere with scientific fact. I dont understand why the earth has to be a rediculously early age to agree with creationism, that is quite obsurd.
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
it's quite obsurd that you can conclude that it takes one million years old to create that isotope... have you tested it for a million years? I think not... I'll give you 200 years... there's no way you can come to any factual conclusion like that with such a short time to test it.... it's not possible.
 
willcon

willcon

Member
I DONT THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IM SAYING TO YOU SO ILL PUT IT IN CAPSLOCK, URANIUM BREAKS DOWN INTO A SPECIFIC LEAD ISOTOPE AT AN EXTREMELY CONSTANT RATE, DEDUCING FROM THE AMOUNT OF THAT SPECIFIC ISOTOPE OF LEAD PRESENT IN A ROCK YOU MUST CONCUR THAT THE URANIUM HAD TO OF HAD AT LEAST A CERTIAN AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE LEAD ISOTOPE TO EXIST IN THAT NUMBER. FINDING ROCKS WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF THIS UNIQUE ISOTOPE IT IS ONLY REASONABLE TO TRY CONCLUDE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME NECESSARY
FOR THAT ISOTOPE TO EXIST IN THAT QUANTITY. WHICH WE HAVE DONE AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EARTH IS AT LEAST 3.6 BILLION YEARS OLD. PLEASE DO RESEARCH ON THE TOPIC YOU WISH TO DEBATE OVER, and please dont act like your an authority on the subject if you know nothing about it.
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
woah, there, calm yourself... DOWN BOY!!! hehehe. don't try to force your beliefs on me, or i'll do the same to you.
I'm saying humans are always wrong about everything, and I BELIEVE this is just one more thing they're wrong on... It's impossible to know that it breaks down at an extremely constant rate, because we can only have been testing it for the last so many years... There is no need to yell, and that kind of attitude will not be tolerated on this forum, so either be nice, or don't say anything at all.
This is exactly what ophiura was talking about earlier when she said that someone always comes in and tries to force their beliefs on other people, and it turns into a big mean debate. I'm through with you, so have a nice day!
 
caomt

caomt

Member
calculations can be way off for example.. people say you can know how old a tree is by the rings on the inside... some trees grow more then one ring a year.. im pretty sure there is an exact answer for this whole thing.. its just no one has ever put all the evidence into place where it belongs to support another evidence.. all of us came up with a bunch of different things someones just gotta place them all togeather
 
willcon

willcon

Member
im sorry you cannot accept a known truth, and this has actually been studied for hundreds of years, and it is known how fast it decays, theyve tested historical sites with the same method and it has ALWAYS been connsistant over thousands of years. i dont mean to force "my oppinion"(which its not, it is a scientific fact im merely trying to explain in simple terms its unfortuante your mind has been fogged to much, to understand something us humans have worked very hard to learn, and know that we KNOW somethin for sure its sad when its not accepted because of ignorance.
Please excuse me.
 
caomt

caomt

Member
as you can see the conditions in this world are never the same.. each winter gets colder each summer gets hotter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top